Dreams From My Real Father is not Joel Gilbert's first DVD documentary to present a wild conspiracy theory that attempts to completely rewrite the life of a world-famous individual with stories of cover-ups that extended over whole decades, and claims of astonishing new evidence that Gilbert says he uncovered. In 2010, Gilbert wrote and produced Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison, and in January 2012 he released Elvis Found Alive. Both were projects of Gilbert's production company, Highway 61 Entertainment.

Paul (available on Netflix streaming) makes the case that Paul McCartney died in 1966 and was replaced in the Beatles by a doppleganger. Gilbert's website claims that in 2005, he received a mysterious envelope with no return address, containing two microcasettes that featured George Harrison's extended confession of the cover-up. Images of the envelope and tapes are prominently featured in the film and on the website. In his introduction to the film, Gilbert says that he had the tapes tested by "three different forensic labs." The audio of 'George' is then used as the movie's narration for the following hour and a half.

Elvis, by contrast, argues that the King of Rock and Roll did not die in 1977, but instead faked his death and lived on as a federal drug enforcement agent named "Jon Burrows." As in Paul, Gilbert says he obtained previously-secret evidence to support this claim, this time through a Freedom of Information Act request. Gilbert features himself prominently in the film, as he claims to track down the living Elvis, who he interviews and convinces to record a new album. Somewhat inexplicably, Gilbert's Elvis even rants about Bill Ayers and "Barry Soetoro," conveniently segueing into Gilbert's next project.

Of course, in Dreams From My Real Father, the claim is that President Obama's entire lifestory is fictionalized, beginning before his birth, and that he is the biological and ideological son of poet Frank Marshall Davis. Just as in the other two films, Gilbert has insisted that this movie's claims are also based on astonishing evidence he gathered, even though the movie consists of almost nothing but existing footage and publicly available photos. Whatever extraordinary 'evidence' Gilbert obtained during his supposed trips to Hawaii somehow failed to make it onscreen. And just as Paul was narrated by a supposed George Harrison, and Elvis prominently featured the voiceover of a supposed elderly Mr. Presley, Dreams is narrated by an Obama soundalike.

There are plenty of reviews of these films online, detailing just how ridiculous and fact-impaired they are. The DVDTalk reviews are particularly thorough. One review offered up a description of Gilbert's work that perfectly encapsulates his Dreams as well: "The allegations are so preposterous, we were laughing out loud; had this been evidence offered in a courtroom, we’d have been removed."

With almost no time wasted, Paul gets off to an inauspicious start. Just after the opening montage and before Gilbert's introduction, this establishing shot appears:

Two minutes in, and Gilbert is already lying to his viewers. (Oh, and to any Birthers reading, that is how you prove something was Photoshopped.)

There's also an intriguing tidbit at the other end of Paul, in the closing credits. Lance Lewman is listed as one of two "Researchers" on the film. Lewman is a professional voiceover artist who just happened to also narrate two of Gilbert's other films: Atomic Jihad and Farewell Israel. If Gilbert simply hired his previous narrator to fake a British accent, then that makes his 'mysterious envelope' story all the more contemptible.

Nowadays, Gilbert would likely defend his Paul and Elvis films on the grounds that they weren't meant to be serious. On the Highway 61 website, they are listed under the category of "Spoofs/Mockumentaries."

That category, however, is a relatively new addition to Gilbert's company website. Previously, Paul and Elvis were promoted as straightforward documentaries, both in the films themselves and in Gilbert's promotional efforts. Gilbert's company website used to listPaul directly alongside his Middle-East documentary Atomic Jihad and one of his Bob Dylan retrospectives. As mentioned above, the introduction to Paul has Gilbert directly telling his audience a story about how he received the mysterious tapes in the mail, and how he spent five years having them scientifically tested. In this interview, Gilbert claims to have commissioned scientific testing on the mysterious tapes he says were mailed to him:

Gilbert: "we do have in L.A. forensic equipment in different film studios that we've worked with as well as somebody who's actually had some experience with the police. We went to three different places, each time trying to get a little more sophisticated in our comparison...we found out that the voice did match up quite well with some recordings and interviews from Harrison from the late '90s that he'd given and that it was extremely close to that. And that's how each time we tried to nail it a little closer to the point where we were told it's a high likelihood it is Harrison."

And, of course, if Paul was just a 'mockumentary' narrated by a George impersonator, then that means Gilbert was lying through his teeth when he discussed all these supposed forensic tests, and the "high likelihood" that it's Harrison's actual voice. In another interview, Gilbert claims his attorney said "the usage of Harrison’s voice is legal because the film is a both journalism and a documentary." Documentary, he said. Not spoof.

Nowhere is Gilbert's subsequent change-of-tune more obvious than on the film websites themselves.

The image to the right shows the Paul website as it appears today. It begins:

The "Paul is Dead" urban legend that exploded worldwide in 1969 was considered a hoax. In this mockumentary spoof of "Paul-Is-Dead," a voice on mysterious tapes reveals a secret Beatles history, chronicling McCartney's fatal accident. A package arrives from London with no return address. Inside are two mini-cassette audio tapes dated December 30, 1999 and labeled THE LAST TESTAMENT OF GEORGE HARRISON...

It plainly says "mockumentary spoof" in the second sentence. But that language wasn't added to the website until sometime after July 2011. The Paul website as it appeared in 2010, both before and after the DVD's September 2010 release, told a different story. It spotlighted Highway 61's role far more prominently, instead of the passive-voice construction of today ("A package arrives" "audio tapes dated"), and it never used the words "mockumentary" or "spoof" at all. Instead, as seen on the bottom right, it advertised the film as being a perfectly serious investigative expose:

Until now, the “Paul is Dead” mystery that exploded worldwide in 1969 was considered a hoax. However, in this film, George Harrison reveals a secret Beatles history, chronicling McCartney’s fatal accident, the cover up, dozens of unknown clues, and a dangerous cat and mouse game with “Maxwell,” the Beatles’ MI5 handler, as John Lennon became increasingly reckless with the secret. Harrison also insists that Lennon was assassinated in 1980 after he threatened to finally expose "Paul McCartney" as an imposter!

Highway 61 Entertainment has corroborated most of George Harrison’s stunning account of the conspiracy to hide McCartney’s tragic death. Harrison’s complete audio tapes narrate this film that includes all the newly unearthed evidence. The Last Testament of George Harrison may prove to be the most important document of rock and roll history, leaving little doubt that PAUL McCARTNEY REALLY IS DEAD!

What Gilbert says in 2012 is a "mockumentary spoof," in 2010 he was promoting as "the most important document of rock and roll history." Similarly, in 2012, he's claiming that the content of Dreamswould earn any journalist a Pulitzer; what will he be saying about it two years from now?

First sentence now: "In this new mockumentary spoof of Elvis theories, Elvis has been FOUND ALIVE!"

And it wasn't just on his individual promotional websites that Gilbert did this. His original press releases and promotional materials treated the films as perfectly serious, and never used the word "mockumentary." Reviews noted that the movies were advertised as "documentaries." The DVDsleeves didn't call themselves "mockumentaries" or "spoofs." And Gilbert gave multipleinterviews about the Paul film where he claimed the movie was a completely serious investigative piece, including doubling-down on the 'mysterious envelope' backstory.

Even over at the Internet Movie Database, Gilbert's Paul is today categorized under three genres: "Documentary | Fantasy | Music." But back in September 2010, just after the DVD was released, it had just one genre label: "Documentary."

When one is confronted with questionable evidence, a basic question to always ask is "How credible is the source?" Has he made grand pronouncements before, only to be subsequently proven wrong? Has he made similar mistakes in the past? Does he simply have a history of lying, and recycling the same sorts of lies?

In 2010, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Paul McCartney where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Paul's life as we know it...until he later changed his tune and said that it was just a big joke.

In 2011, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Elvis Presley where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Elvis' life as we know it...until he later changed his tune and said that it was just a big joke.

In 2012, Joel Gilbert made a DVD movie about Barack Obama where he declared to the world that he'd uncovered astonishing new evidence that would rewrite Obama's life as we know it...

“... In any case, those nude photo claims will be annihilated for good in the final installment of this series. If you haven’t been convinced yet of Gilbert’s rampant dishonesty and disingenuousness, you will be.”

(Now you know how it feels, the lie went halway ‘round the world before truth had time to get its pants on.)

Fred, I hate to suggest you are out and out lying, because I really think you try to be honest, but it looks to me like you are juxtaposing pictures of Marci Moore with Stanley Ann to create the appearance that they are the same woman.

Anyone who's seen the rest of the Marci Moore pictures knows instantly that they are not the same woman, and I cannot fathom why you are attempting to create the impression that they are.

"But, but, but then that would mean that the MX-as-the-real-father narrative would be untrue! That simply cannot beafter all I've invested in time and emotion in running down that angle!"

I guess I came too late to this party to have become entrenched in one particular camp as far as what the deception truly is. To my mind, the scenario that Gilbert has laid out seems the most logical/plausible at current, even if it is not complete either. I've at least watched the film, which is more than can be said for many naysayers, from what I've read on this forum.

The fact that zotted LorenC is up in arms over it makes it all the more likely to be hitting very close to home, IMNSHO.

48
posted on 10/02/2012 2:32:30 AM PDT
by Flotsam_Jetsome
("Obama": His entire life is Photoshopped.)

Im doing that because Im an idiot and I need a new hobby. Thanks for reminding me.

We all do. I personally think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you are sometimes overzealous, and too willing to seize on inconclusive or dubious data, and too quick to reject provable information. (Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.) You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.

...I personally think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you are sometimes overzealous, and too willing to seize on inconclusive or dubious data, and too quick to reject provable information.

Same thing applies to you...

(Such as that picture of the young girl with the crooked tooth not being Stanley Ann Dunham.)

I gave you the link to where that image came from, that website is the same as identified Madelyn and Stanley Armour Dunham as one couple at a dinner table, and if you believe that identification, there's no hope for you...Nicoloff finished off that series by showing, in glorious colour, that zero had reptile skin. That's not where I would choose to collect information - it's written for entertainment value, it's Disney-like.

You have a rare talent for finding information though, i'll grant you that.

I don't have anything other than a reasonably good memory, and I have been following this much longer than you, I joined in 2003, you in 2011 iirc. You're trying to teach an old dog new tricks, and it won't work while you are calling me a liar and being patronizing.

Serves them right for all their lies, those images are now all over the web with her name on them. He can kick and scream and it won’t make any difference now. So what if he can show that the images originated in a certain magazine two years before the Dunhams arrived in Hawaii? No one will believe him anyway.

You’ve got a major attention span problem I guess, I’m the last one to have slandered anyone, I’ve spent all my time and worn out my welcome in the process on FR by trying to show that the model wasn’t Stanley Ann Dunham. My last comment was sarcasm. Loren C is going to get nowhere with his denials that S.A.D. posed naked - JUST LIKE I GOT NOWHERE. There’s a certain sector that includes Jerome Corsi and Kincaid who prefer the FMD-AS-FATHER theory and to make that work, Stanley Ann just has to be the girl who took her clothes off, never mind that the first images from one of the magazines Joel Gilbert names was dated 1958, according to Loren C (banned freeper) in his latest update, to which I posted a link.

I think we made it clear in that, Gilbert’s story is fake, but it’s been chosen as useful and has gained so much traction, any quest for truth might as well be forgotten. What we see now looks like fighting lies with lies, and for that, I’m not responsible - but I am laughing.

It’s quite obvious to me now that anyone who thinks for themselves and doesn’t march lockstep with one side or the other, is going to get attacked from both sides. I’m an Aussie and I’m wondering how you all got so programmed.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.